* Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Tue, 08/22 10:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> > I haven't really encountered (c), but I think it's the migrate_cancel
> > command that matters, which should not need BQL as well.
>
> There is bdrv_invalidate_cache_all() in migrate_cancel which clearly isn't
> safe.
On Tue, 08/22 09:29, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > On Tue, 08/22 13:59, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:15:19PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 08/22 10:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > > I haven't really encountered (c), but I think it
* Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Tue, 08/22 13:59, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:15:19PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > On Tue, 08/22 10:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > I haven't really encountered (c), but I think it's the migrate_cancel
> > > > command that matters, which sho
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 02:33:48PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Tue, 08/22 13:59, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:15:19PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > On Tue, 08/22 10:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > I haven't really encountered (c), but I think it's the migrate_cancel
> > > > command t
On Tue, 08/22 13:59, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:15:19PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Tue, 08/22 10:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > I haven't really encountered (c), but I think it's the migrate_cancel
> > > command that matters, which should not need BQL as well.
> >
> > There is bdr
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 09:51:47PM -0700, no-re...@patchew.org wrote:
[...]
> TESTtests/qapi-schema/doc-duplicated-return.out
> TESTtests/qapi-schema/doc-duplicated-since.out
> TESTtests/qapi-schema/doc-empty-arg.out
> TESTtests/qapi-schema/doc-empty-section.out
> TEST
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:15:19PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Tue, 08/22 10:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> > I haven't really encountered (c), but I think it's the migrate_cancel
> > command that matters, which should not need BQL as well.
>
> There is bdrv_invalidate_cache_all() in migrate_cancel which
Hi,
This series failed automatic build test. Please find the testing commands and
their output below. If you have docker installed, you can probably reproduce it
locally.
Type: series
Message-id: 1503301464-27886-1-git-send-email-pet...@redhat.com
Subject: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/6] monitor: allow pe
On Tue, 08/22 10:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> I haven't really encountered (c), but I think it's the migrate_cancel
> command that matters, which should not need BQL as well.
There is bdrv_invalidate_cache_all() in migrate_cancel which clearly isn't safe.
Is that if block unreachable in this case? If so
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:15:56AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Mon, 08/21 18:28, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > It's not much more than asserting qemu_mutex_iothread_locked(), the
> > > problem is
> > > the new monitor thread breaks certain assumptions that was true.
> > >
> > > What is int
On Mon, 08/21 18:28, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > It's not much more than asserting qemu_mutex_iothread_locked(), the problem
> > is
> > the new monitor thread breaks certain assumptions that was true.
> >
> > What is interesting in this is that block layer's nested aio_poll() now not
> > o
* Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Mon, 08/21 16:36, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > On Mon, 08/21 18:05, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:58:51PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 08/21 15:44, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > > >
On Mon, 08/21 16:36, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, 08/21 18:05, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:58:51PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 08/21 15:44, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > > This is an extended work for migration postcopy
* Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Mon, 08/21 18:05, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:58:51PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > On Mon, 08/21 15:44, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > This is an extended work for migration postcopy recovery. This series
> > > > is tested with the following se
* Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Mon, 08/21 11:17, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > From previous discussions we've had, one suggestion was to have some
> > type of 'safe' command; once issued in a thread, the monitor thread
> > would only allow other lock-free commands to be issued; it s
On Mon, 08/21 11:17, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> From previous discussions we've had, one suggestion was to have some
> type of 'safe' command; once issued in a thread, the monitor thread
> would only allow other lock-free commands to be issued; it stops any
> accidents of them issuing unsafe c
On Mon, 08/21 18:05, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:58:51PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Mon, 08/21 15:44, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > This is an extended work for migration postcopy recovery. This series
> > > is tested with the following series to make sure it solves the monitor
> > > h
* Peter Xu (pet...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:58:51PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Mon, 08/21 15:44, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > This is an extended work for migration postcopy recovery. This series
> > > is tested with the following series to make sure it solves the monitor
> > >
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:58:51PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Mon, 08/21 15:44, Peter Xu wrote:
> > This is an extended work for migration postcopy recovery. This series
> > is tested with the following series to make sure it solves the monitor
> > hang problem that we have encountered for postco
On Mon, 08/21 15:44, Peter Xu wrote:
> This is an extended work for migration postcopy recovery. This series
> is tested with the following series to make sure it solves the monitor
> hang problem that we have encountered for postcopy recovery:
>
> [RFC 00/29] Migration: postcopy failure recover
20 matches
Mail list logo
